[Congressional Record Volume 168, Number 153 (Thursday, September 22, 2022)]
[House]
[Pages H8085-H8090]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                              {time}  1400
                     INVEST TO PROTECT ACT OF 2022

  Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 1377, I call up 
the bill (H.R. 6448) to direct the Director of the Office of Community 
Oriented Policing Services of the Department of Justice to carry out a 
grant program to provide assistance to police departments with fewer 
than 200 law enforcement officers, and for other purposes, and ask for 
its immediate consideration in the House.
  The Clerk read the title of the bill.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 1377, an 
amendment in the nature of a substitute consisting of the text of Rules 
Committee Print 117-65 is adopted and the bill, as amended, is 
considered read.
  The text of the bill, as amended, is as follows:

                               H.R. 6448

       Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
     the United States of America in Congress assembled,

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

       This Act may be cited as the ``Invest to Protect Act of 
     2022''.

     SEC. 2. GRANT PROGRAM.

       (a) Definitions.--In this Act:
       (1) De-escalation training.--The term ``de-escalation 
     training'' means training relating to taking action or 
     communicating verbally or non-verbally during a potential 
     force encounter in an attempt to stabilize the situation so 
     that more time, options, and resources can be called upon to 
     minimize the need for the use of force and increase the 
     likelihood of voluntary compliance, including persuasion, 
     warnings, creating space, use of physical barriers, slowing 
     down the pace of an incident, and requesting additional 
     resources.
       (2) Director.--The term ``Director'' means the Director of 
     the Office.
       (3) Eligible local government.--The term ``eligible local 
     government'' means--
       (A) a county, municipality, town, township, village, 
     parish, borough, or other unit of general government below 
     the State level that employs fewer than 125 law enforcement 
     officers; or
       (B) a Tribal government that employs fewer than 125 law 
     enforcement officers.
       (4) Law enforcement officer.--The term ``law enforcement 
     officer'' has the meaning given the term ``career law 
     enforcement officer'' in section 1709 of title I the Omnibus 
     Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968 (34 U.S.C. 10389).
       (5) Office.--The term ``Office'' means the Office of 
     Community Oriented Policing Services of the Department of 
     Justice.
       (b) Establishment.--There is established within the Office 
     a grant program to--
       (1) provide training and access to mental health resources 
     to local law enforcement officers; and
       (2) improve the recruitment and retention of local law 
     enforcement officers.
       (c) Authority.--Not later than 120 days after the date of 
     enactment of this Act, the Director shall award grants to 
     eligible local governments as a part of the grant program 
     established under subsection (b).
       (d) Applications.--
       (1) Barriers.--The Attorney General shall determine what 
     barriers exist to establishing a streamlined application 
     process for grants under this section.
       (2) Report.--
       (A) In general.--Not later than 60 days after the date of 
     enactment of this Act, the Attorney General shall submit to 
     Congress a report that includes a plan to execute a 
     streamlined application process for grants under this section 
     under which an eligible local government seeking a grant 
     under this section can reasonably complete the application in 
     not more than 2 hours.
       (B) Contents of plan.--The plan required under subparagraph 
     (A) may include a plan for--
       (i) proactively providing eligible local governments 
     seeking a grant under this section with information on the 
     data such eligible local governments will need to prepare 
     before beginning the grant application; and
       (ii) ensuring technical assistance is available for 
     eligible local governments seeking a grant under this section 
     before and during the grant application process, including 
     through dedicated liaisons within the Office.
       (3) Applications.--In selecting eligible local governments 
     to receive grants under this section, the Director shall use 
     the streamlined application process described in paragraph 
     (2)(A).
       (4) Preference.--The Attorney General may give preference 
     to applicants who specify in their applications that grant 
     amounts will be used for the eligible activities set forth in 
     paragraphs (1), (2), (3), (4), (9), and (10) of subsection 
     (e).
       (e) Eligible Activities.--An eligible local government that 
     receives a grant under this section may use amounts from the 
     grant only for--
       (1) de-escalation training for law enforcement officers;
       (2) victim-centered training for law enforcement officers 
     in handling situations of domestic violence;
       (3) evidence-based law enforcement safety training for 
     response to calls for service involving--
       (A) persons with substance use disorders;
       (B) persons with mental health needs;
       (C) veterans;
       (D) persons with disabilities;
       (E) vulnerable youth;
       (F) persons who are victims of domestic violence, sexual 
     assault, or trafficking; and
       (G) persons experiencing homelessness or living in poverty;
       (4) the offsetting of overtime costs associated with 
     scheduling issues relating to the participation of a law 
     enforcement officer in the training described in paragraphs 
     (1) through (3), (9) and (10);
       (5) a signing bonus for a law enforcement officer in an 
     amount determined by the eligible local government;
       (6) a retention bonus for a law enforcement officer--
       (A) in an amount determined by the eligible local 
     government that does not exceed 20 percent of the salary of 
     the law enforcement officer; and
       (B) who--
       (i) has been employed at the law enforcement agency for not 
     fewer than 5 years;
       (ii) has not been found by an internal investigation to 
     have engaged in serious misconduct; and
       (iii) commits to remain with the law enforcement agency for 
     a minimum 3 years from the time of receipt of the bonus;
       (7) a stipend for the graduate education of law enforcement 
     officers in the area of mental health, public health, or 
     social work, which shall not exceed the lesser of--
       (A) $10,000; or
       (B) the amount the law enforcement officer pays towards 
     such graduate education;
       (8) providing access to patient-centered behavioral health 
     services for law enforcement officers, which may include 
     resources for risk assessments, evidence-based, trauma-
     informed care to treat post-traumatic stress disorder or 
     acute stress disorder, peer support and counselor services 
     and family supports, and the promotion of improved access to 
     high quality mental health care through telehealth;
       (9) implementation of evidence-based best practices and 
     training on the use of lethal and nonlethal force;
       (10) implementation of evidence-based best practices and 
     training on the duty of care and the duty to intervene; and
       (11) data collection for police practices regarding officer 
     and community safety.
       (f) Reporting Requirements for Grant Recipients.--
       (1) In general.--The Director shall establish reporting 
     requirements for eligible local government that receive a 
     grant under this section in order to assist with the 
     evaluation by the Office of the program established under 
     this section.
       (2) Considerations.--In establishing any requirements under 
     paragraph (1), the Director shall consider the capacity of 
     law enforcement agencies with fewer than 125 officers to 
     collect and report information.
       (g) Disclosure of Officer Recruitment and Retention 
     Bonuses.--
       (1) In general.--Not later than 60 days after the date on 
     which an eligible local government that receives a grant 
     under this section awards a signing or retention bonus 
     described in paragraph (5) or (6) of subsection (e), the 
     eligible local government shall disclose to the Director and 
     make publicly available on a website of the eligible local 
     government the amount of such bonus.
       (2) Report.--The Attorney General shall submit to the 
     appropriate congressional committees an annual report that 
     includes each signing or retention bonus disclosed under 
     paragraph (1) during the preceding year.
       (h) Grant Accountability.--All grants awarded by the 
     Director under this section shall be subject to the following 
     accountability provisions:
       (1) Audit requirement.--
       (A) Definition.--In this paragraph, the term ``unresolved 
     audit finding'' means a finding in the final audit report of 
     the Inspector General of the Department of Justice that the 
     audited grantee has used grant funds for an unauthorized 
     expenditure or otherwise unallowable cost that is not closed 
     or resolved within 12 months from the date when the final 
     audit report is issued.
       (B) Audits.--Beginning in the first fiscal year beginning 
     after the date of enactment of this subsection, and in each 
     fiscal year thereafter, the Inspector General of the 
     Department of Justice shall conduct audits of recipients of 
     grants

[[Page H8086]]

     under this section to prevent waste, fraud, and abuse of 
     funds by grantees. The Inspector General of the Department of 
     Justice shall determine the appropriate number of grantees to 
     be audited each year.
       (C) Mandatory exclusion.--A recipient of grant funds under 
     this section that is found to have an unresolved audit 
     finding shall not be eligible to receive grant funds under 
     this section during the first 3 fiscal years beginning after 
     the end of the 12-month period described in subparagraph (A).
       (D) Reimbursement.--If an eligible local government is 
     awarded grant funds under this section during the 3-fiscal-
     year period during which the eligible local government is 
     barred from receiving grants under subparagraph (C), the 
     Attorney General shall--
       (i) deposit an amount equal to the amount of the grant 
     funds that were improperly awarded to the grantee into the 
     General Fund of the Treasury; and
       (ii) seek to recoup the costs of the repayment to the fund 
     from the grant recipient that was erroneously awarded grant 
     funds.
       (2) Annual certification.--Beginning in the fiscal year 
     during which audits commence under paragraph (1)(B), the 
     Attorney General shall submit to the Committee on the 
     Judiciary and the Committee on Appropriations of the Senate 
     and the Committee on the Judiciary and the Committee on 
     Appropriations of the House of Representatives an annual 
     certification--
       (A) indicating whether--
       (i) all audits issued by the Office of the Inspector 
     General of the Department of Justice under paragraph (1) have 
     been completed and reviewed by the appropriate Assistant 
     Attorney General or Director;
       (ii) all mandatory exclusions required under paragraph 
     (1)(C) have been issued; and
       (iii) all reimbursements required under paragraph (1)(E) 
     have been made; and
       (B) that includes a list of any grant recipients excluded 
     under paragraph (1) from the previous year.
       (i) Program Evaluation.--The Attorney General shall, on an 
     annual basis, conduct analyses of the information provided by 
     grant recipients pursuant to subsection (f) to evaluate the 
     efficacy of training programs funded through the grant 
     program established by this Act in reducing the incidence of 
     use of force by the law enforcement agency.
       (j) Preventing Duplicative Grants.--
       (1) In general.--Before the Director awards a grant to an 
     eligible local government under this section, the Attorney 
     General shall compare potential grant awards with other 
     grants awarded by the Attorney General to determine if grant 
     awards are or have been awarded for a similar purpose.
       (2) Report.--If the Attorney General awards grants to the 
     same applicant for a similar purpose, whether through the 
     grant program established by this Act or other grant programs 
     provided by the Department of Justice, the Attorney General 
     shall submit to the Committee on the Judiciary of the Senate 
     and the Committee on the Judiciary of the House of 
     Representatives a report that includes--
       (A) a list of all such grants awarded, including the total 
     dollar amount of any such grants awarded; and
       (B) the reason the Attorney General awarded multiple grants 
     to the same applicant for a similar purpose.
       (k) Funding.--
       (1) In general.--There is authorized to be appropriated 
     $60,000,000 for each of fiscal years 2023 through 2027 to 
     carry out the grant program under this section.
       (2) Limitation.--In carrying out this section for a fiscal 
     year, if the amounts made available in appropriations Acts 
     for that fiscal year is not less than the amount authorized 
     to be appropriated under paragraph (1), the Director shall 
     use not less than 20 percent of such amounts in that fiscal 
     year for grants under this section to eligible local 
     governments that will use the grants to carry out one or more 
     of the eligible activities set forth in paragraphs (1), (2), 
     (3), (4), (9), and (10) of subsection (e).

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The bill, as amended, shall be debatable for 
30 minutes equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking 
minority member of the Committee on the Judiciary or their respective 
designees.
  The gentleman from New York (Mr. Nadler) and the gentleman from Ohio 
(Mr. Jordan) each will control 15 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from New York.


                             General Leave

  Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may 
have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and 
insert extraneous material on H.R. 6448.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from New York?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, H.R. 6448, the Invest to Protect Act, is bipartisan 
legislation to bolster law enforcement agencies' ability to address 
staffing shortages and improve community safety through de-escalation 
training and mental health resources.
  Let me be clear, Democrats have always stood for equitable funding 
for law enforcement. Contrary to what some of my colleagues might say, 
the issue of violent crime is not a red State or blue State issue. The 
rise in violent crime affects every community across the country.
  Democrats also know that public safety and respect for civil rights 
can coexist. Building healthy and strong communities does not require 
us to choose between our rights and our safety.
  This legislation would establish a grant program focused on improving 
recruitment and retention of officers and providing additional training 
and access to mental health resources for small law enforcement 
agencies.
  When police departments are unable to recruit, retain, and adequately 
resource qualified officers, communities suffer a clear threat to 
public safety. These officer staffing shortages can cause longer wait 
times for emergency calls, fewer crimes cleared, and more overworked 
officers, which can threaten both officer health and the quality of 
life in our communities.
  This bill seeks to address these challenges by providing additional 
Federal resources to small agencies to recruit and retain qualified 
officers, as well as provide additional training and support for these 
agencies.
  I thank Representative Josh Gottheimer for his leadership on this 
issue and for introducing this important legislation along with his 
bipartisan cosponsors.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support the bill, and I reserve 
the balance of my time.
  Mr. JORDAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, the chairman just said that the Democrats have always 
been for--I think the direct quote was: ``equitable funding for law 
enforcement.'' That is interesting because, just 2 years ago, here is 
what the chairman said in June 2020:

       There should be substantial cuts to police budgets.

  I don't know how you can say you have always been for something when 
2 years ago you said that you weren't, but that just seems what 
Democrats are up to today.
  Let's call this package of bills before us today exactly what it is: 
It is an election year ploy from Democrats to look like they care about 
funding law enforcement.
  In the wake of radical leftwing efforts to defund the police, it is 
no surprise that violent crime is on the rise in America. Every major 
urban area has seen a huge uptick in violent crime. It should also be 
no surprise that Democrats are now trying to run and hide from their 
radical ideas and dangerous rhetoric.
  For more than 2 years, we have seen violent crime surge all across 
the country, particularly in Democrat-run cities while many of those 
same Democrats not only advocated for defunding police departments, but 
they did it. They cut them.
  Now, the Democrats want to use Federal tax dollars to paper over the 
problems they created in their local Democrat-run cities.
  These bills do nothing to solve the underlying problem. They simply 
create more grant programs within the bureaucracy of the Federal 
Government.
  Under current law, there are already grants available to law 
enforcement to hire personnel. In fact, last year, the Justice 
Department awarded more than $139 million in grant dollars through the 
Office of Community Oriented Policing Services. That money provided 
funds to 183 law enforcement agencies and allowed them to hire more 
than 1,000 additional officers.
  We don't need more Federal grants so Democrat-run cities can then 
divert taxpayer money to fund their woke agenda. What we need are 
prosecutors who are willing to prosecute crimes and jurisdictions with 
laws that actually keep violent criminals in prison.
  Nothing in these bills prevents jurisdictions that choose to defund 
their police from receiving these grant funds. In fact, when Judiciary 
Republicans offered an amendment to preclude jurisdictions that 
defunded their police from receiving grant funds, the Democrats 
rejected it, and they rejected it unanimously.
  Faced with an election just over a month away, House Democrats now 
want to pretend they actually support law enforcement. The timing of 
this bill should tell you all you need to know about where Democrat 
priorities are.

[[Page H8087]]

  Democrats who are in full control of this body have had 2 years to 
show their support for law enforcement. Only now, when faced with an 
impending election, are Democrats beginning to feign support for our 
men and women in blue.
  Democrats could have shown their support for law enforcement. 
Instead, Democrats passed bills to infringe on Americans' Second 
Amendment rights, legalize marijuana, and further empower the Biden 
Justice Department to spy on concerned parents.

  These bills are just another admission by Democrats that the defund 
the police movement is wrong and irresponsible. Perhaps, if the 
Democrats weren't in a cleanup mode after their irresponsible embrace 
of defund the police rhetoric, the Judiciary Committee could have had 
an opportunity to consider and improve most of these bills before they 
came to the floor. But we didn't. Instead, Democrats are rushing to 
consider these bills to give themselves some pretense that they support 
funding the police.
  No one is fooled. Americans know where Democrats really stand. 
Americans aren't buying the Democrats' revisionist history. They have 
seen years of Democrats embracing and supporting the radical defund the 
police movement. Americans know that the Democrats are the party of 
soaring crime and defunding the police.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge opposition of this bill, and I reserve the 
balance of my time.
  Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Gottheimer), the sponsor of this bill.
  Mr. GOTTHEIMER. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of my 
bipartisan, bicameral legislation, the Invest to Protect Act, to invest 
in good policing, to fight crime, and to protect our families and 
officers.
  We must ensure that local police departments across our country have 
what they need to recruit and retain the finest officers, provide 
necessary training, and invest in providing mental health resources for 
our officers.
  Across our country, we have seen a rise in crime, and this is at a 
time when it is harder than ever to hire, recruit, and retain officers. 
In fact, last year, public reports found a 44 percent increase in 
retirements and an 18 percent increase in resignations of law 
enforcement.
  It is clear: If you want to make something better, you don't get 
there by cutting or defunding. You need to make smart, targeted 
investments. We must fund, not defund, law enforcement.
  That is why I introduced the bipartisan Invest to Protect Act to make 
critical investments in local police departments and protect our 
communities.
  Work on Invest to Protect started more than a year ago through 
bipartisan police reform talks with Democrats and Republicans in the 
House, the Senate, and the States, including with members of the 
bipartisan Problem Solvers Caucus, who have overwhelmingly endorsed 
this legislation.
  I helped craft the bipartisan Invest to Protect Act with Republican 
Congressman, former sheriff, and my friend,   John Rutherford, and it 
was developed through conversations with both sides in both Chambers, 
and with a broad spectrum of stakeholders. I, again, thank the sheriff 
for his work and leadership.
  I am appreciative of the support and input from the National 
Association of Police Organizations; the Fraternal Order of Police; our 
New Jersey law enforcement organizations and departments, including the 
New Jersey State PBA and the New Jersey State Fraternal Order of 
Police; and my Senate colleagues.
  This bill would not be where it is today without the support of 
Congressional Black Caucus Chairwoman Joyce Beatty, whose leadership 
and friendship have been critical. I also thank the Congressional 
Progressive Caucus for their constructive engagement in this process. I 
thank Caucus Chairman Jeffries and Speaker Pelosi for their work, as 
well.
  The Invest to Protect Act will invest in small and midsized police 
departments with fewer than 125 sworn officers, which make up more than 
96 percent of local departments.
  First, it will invest in officer safety, de-escalation, and domestic 
violence response training, and it will offset overtime pay for 
officers who are training.
  Second, it will provide grants for departments to recruit new 
officers. It will also provide retention bonuses to help them keep 
their best officers on the job.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I yield an additional 1 minute to the 
gentleman.
  Mr. GOTTHEIMER. Finally, it will help departments provide mental 
health resources for their officers and include strong accountability 
measures.
  These are critical steps we must take.
  Going forward, I will continue to fight for additional equipment and 
training our officers need to protect our communities.
  The bottom line: You can't cut or defund your way to safer 
communities and better police departments. It is about investing to 
protect. We must always get the backs of those who risk their lives 
every day to protect us.
  Again, I thank Sheriff Rutherford for his leadership, law enforcement 
unions for working so hard on this legislation, and all of our 
colleagues on both sides of the aisle for putting country first and 
getting this legislation to the floor.
  Mr. JORDAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Florida (Mr. Rutherford).
  Mr. RUTHERFORD. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this bill.
  I was very fortunate during my 40-year law enforcement career to work 
for a large and growing law enforcement agency. We had the resources to 
go after Federal grants to help keep our community safe, to bring those 
Federal dollars back home to protect my community.
  I know that many agencies that I worked with did not have that 
benefit, and that is why, on many of the projects that came from 
Federal participation, we often partnered with much smaller agencies to 
help them out.
  This bill is all about helping those agencies with 125 officers or 
less to be able to access those Federal grants that they cannot access 
right now for training, retention, and hiring. That is what we should 
be doing, Mr. Speaker.
  That is why I worked with my good friend across the aisle, Josh 
Gottheimer. I appreciate him working on this, getting to the language 
that we could all agree with. It has been back and forth quite a bit, 
but we got it here to the floor, and I congratulate him on that.

  This is a bipartisan issue. This is for our law enforcement men and 
women. These are for those small agencies. We need to be able to help 
them out.
  I can tell you the last 2\1/2\ years have left law enforcement 
demoralized like never before. I have seen it. They need this 
assistance as they have officers that are leaving in droves.
  I encourage my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to come together 
and vote for this bill, which is going to help small law enforcement 
agencies join with the National Fraternal Order of Police, which 
supports this bill, and other law enforcement organizations. NAPO is 
another.
  Mr. Speaker, I encourage everyone to vote ``yes'' on this bill. I 
believe these small law enforcement agencies absolutely need our 
assistance.
  Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished 
gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson Lee), a member of the Judiciary 
Committee.
  Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Speaker, I think it should be noted that this 
bill, H.R. 6448, the Invest to Protect Act of 2022, is bipartisan 
legislation that would bolster small law enforcement agencies' ability 
to address staffing shortages and improve community safety through de-
escalation training and other resources.
  It was Democrats who spent 2 years negotiating and working with law 
enforcement to introduce and pass the comprehensive George Floyd 
Justice in Policing Act, which recognized the necessity of balancing 
the needs and safety of community in which law enforcement interests 
engage. I worked on that.

                              {time}  1415

  I worked on that. That is why I tried to make this bill better by 
adding

[[Page H8088]]

three additional purposes for grant funding which include issues 
dealing with use of lethal force, excessive force, and duty of care.
  I am glad that they were added, and grantees who choose these 
activities will be required to do this under this particular provision.
  We can do this together. And let me be very clear: this is not a 
last-ditch effort by Democrats to distance ourselves from efforts to 
defund the police.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 6448, the ``Invest to Protect 
Act of 2022,''--bipartisan legislation that would bolster small law 
enforcement agencies' ability to address staffing shortages and improve 
community safety through de-escalation training and other resources.
  First, let's be clear--This is not a last-ditch effort by Democrats 
to distance ourselves from efforts to defund the police. Democrats have 
always been supportive of law enforcement.
  We have been accused of spending the last two years bashing the 
police. Yet, it was Democrats who spent two years negotiating and 
working with law enforcement to introduce and pass the comprehensive 
``George Floyd Justice in Policing Act of 2021''--which recognized the 
necessity of balancing the needs and safety of the community with law 
enforcement interests.
  H.R. 6448 would establish a grant program within the Department of 
Justice's Community Oriented Policing Services, or COPS, program 
focused on improving recruitment and retention of officers and 
providing additional training and access to mental health resources for 
small law enforcement agencies.
  When police departments are unable to recruit, retain or provide 
suitable resources to qualified officers, communities suffer a clear 
threat to public safety. A June 2021 national survey by the Police 
Executive Research Forum found that, on average, police departments 
around the country were filling only 93 percent of their available 
budgeted positions.
  These officer staffing shortages can cause longer wait times for 
emergency calls, fewer crimes cleared, and more overworked officers, 
which can threaten both officer health and the quality of life in our 
communities.
  This bill seeks to address these challenges by providing additional 
federal resources to small agencies--that often have the most trouble 
accessing federal grant funding--to recruit and retain qualified 
officers as well as provide additional training and support.
  A 2016 study by the Department of Justice (DOJ) found that of the 
12,261 local police departments in the country, 11,638 of them had less 
than 100 full-time sworn officers. That is 11,638 police departments 
that would be eligible to access much-needed funding as authorized by 
H.R. 6448.
  Importantly, H.R. 6448 includes limitations on the use of grant funds 
for hiring and retention to ensure that the funds are not misused, and 
gives preference to applicants that plan to use grant funds for certain 
training purposes, including:
  de-escalation; the use of lethal and nonlethal force; the duty of 
care and the duty to intervene--as well as--
  victim-centered training on handling domestic violence situations; 
and
  safety training for officers responding to calls involving persons 
with substance use disorders, mental health needs, disabilities, and 
vulnerable youth.
  This bill would also allow departments to use funds to provide mental 
health services and treatment to officers and collect data on policing 
practices that focus on officer and community safety.
  In its totality, H.R. 6448 provides critical funding to law 
enforcement agencies that need it while encouraging improvement among 
their ranks. This bill makes clear that Democrats will continue to 
uplift and support law enforcement--as we always have--and we will do 
so in a manner that ensures officers are well-trained to keep 
themselves safe as well as the people and communities they serve.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentlewoman has expired.
  Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I yield the gentlewoman from Texas an 
additional 30 seconds.
  Ms. JACKSON LEE. Democrats have always been supportive of law 
enforcement along with our civil rights friends, and we have put in 
firewalls to insist that we work together with law enforcement and 
large and small entities and that we work with on behalf of justice for 
our constituents and for providing wellness to our police officers, 
providing intervention of violence, and as well to ensure that we 
assist in cases that are backlogged. Democrats have been at the 
forefront. I am very glad to say that we don't ask to defund the FBI, 
we ask to be supportive of our community.
  Mr. JORDAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I just want to be clear. The Democrats want to go from 
COPS to community organizers, and they want the American taxpayer to 
pay for it. That is what they want to do in Democrat-run cities.
  Mr. Speaker, read the bill. It talks about stipends to be used for 
graduate education or social work. That is what the bill is for. It is 
not about putting cops on the street. It is about transferring wealth 
from the people who funded their police and communities around the 
country, who funded their police, and giving American tax dollars to 
cities who didn't fund their police so they can use it for community 
organizers.
  That is what this bill is about. That is why we are against it.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. 
Arrington).
  Mr. ARRINGTON. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend from Ohio for yielding.
  Mr. Speaker, I associate myself with Mr. Jordan's sentiments, and I 
might even take an even stronger and more critical opposition to these 
so-called law enforcement bills. I certainly don't want to impugn the 
motive of every colleague on the other side of the aisle, but here are 
my strong views, and this is my position on behalf of west Texas:
  Since the riots of 2020, I have been warning my Democratic colleagues 
that we get what we tolerate. After 2 years of Democrats' amplifying 
defund the police rhetoric, failing to hold criminals accountable, and 
refusing to condemn the lawlessness that is running rampant in our 
cities across the country, crime is absolutely out of control.
  Last year, a record number of police officers were killed. Seventy-
three American heroes lost their lives. Law enforcement has experienced 
a staggering 115 percent increase in ambush-style attacks. Further 
evidence of the left's war on law enforcement is that police have seen 
a 45 percent increase in retirements and a 20 percent increase in 
resignations, leaving the most vulnerable Americans even more 
susceptible to being victimized by criminals.
  Now the party of defund the police wants to push through some face-
saving bills just ahead of the election in November. Call me cynical, 
but that is unbelievable, Mr. Speaker.
  This legislation would expand the Federal bureaucracy unnecessarily, 
take over the responsibility of local governments, and add even more 
strings to Federal funding for the Biden administration or future 
administrations to impose their woke agenda and unrelated progressive 
policies on the American people.
  Mr. Speaker, these are not real solutions to the crime epidemic in 
America. These are political machinations to give the appearance of 
being supportive of law enforcement. These are a Texas-sized fig leaf 
to cover the Democrat left's reckless policies and dangerous rhetoric 
that have encouraged crime, have only coddled criminals, and have 
created a culture of lawlessness in our country.
  Mr. Speaker, I condemn all of that, and I urge my colleagues on both 
sides to vote ``no'' on this bill and the whole lot of these bills that 
are really just political window dressing.
  Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from 
Virginia (Ms. Spanberger).
  Ms. SPANBERGER. Mr. Speaker, in follow-up to my colleague from Texas' 
comment, I would also say that we get what we pay for, which is why I 
rise to support the bipartisan Invest to Protect Act which is 
legislation I was proud to cosponsor. This legislation follows our 
prior increases of funding to the community-oriented policing program 
through the appropriations process.
  The Invest to Protect Act would help get the job done of ensuring 
that police departments--particularly those like I represent in smaller 
and rural communities--have the ability to recruit and retain officers.
  This legislation invests in officer safety, it invests in domestic 
violence response training, and it invests in funding the police 
departments like those I represent.
  Throughout Virginia's Seventh District, I hear directly from local 
police departments about the need for stronger investments in training, 
equipment, recruitment, and retention. And as a

[[Page H8089]]

former law enforcement officer, I greatly admire and am thankful for 
the dedication of the men and women who work every day to keep our 
communities safe.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentlewoman has expired.
  Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I yield the gentlewoman an additional 30 
seconds.
  Ms. SPANBERGER. Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleagues, Congressman 
Gottheimer and Congressman Rutherford, for their leadership on this 
legislation. I thank CBC Chair Beatty for her partnership on these 
important issues of public safety and public trust. And I appreciate 
that this bill has the endorsement of the Fraternal Order of Police and 
the National Association of Police Officers.
  This is a smart investment, smart policy, and at this moment we 
should have the common commitment to keeping America's communities 
safe.
  Mr. JORDAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the 
gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Fitzgerald).
  Mr. FITZGERALD. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to H.R. 6448, 
the so-called Invest to Protect Act.
  All of the bills that my colleagues on the other side of the aisle 
rushed to the floor today are nothing more than kind of last-minute 
political items, obviously, a few weeks out from election day. They 
will use these bills to claim that they support funding the police.
  However, the American people are not fooled. They saw Democrats 
across the country call for defunding of the police. There is video 
that continues to run ad nauseam with examples of that, and it was all 
in the wake of George Floyd's death.
  We only need to look at the House Judiciary Committee Democrats' 
refusal to take up these bills in regular order. For further evidence 
that these bills are a political stunt, just this week, Judiciary 
Committee Democrats postponed a hearing on organized retail theft until 
after the election.
  The simple truth is Democrats have no interest in putting forth a 
serious effort to reduce crime. All the money in these grant programs 
don't mean a thing if leftwing prosecutors continue to let violent 
criminals out with little or no bail.
  That is why yesterday my colleagues and I introduced the Keeping 
Violent Offenders Off Our Streets Act after last year's horrific attack 
in my district at the Waukesha Christmas parade.
  This bill takes three steps to push back on radical leftwing bail 
laws. It conditions the Byrne grant program funding on meeting the 
Federal pretrial release factors as a floor. It reduces grant funding 
by 75 percent unless State and local jurisdictions develop and maintain 
a public safety report.
  The problem in Waukesha was that later on the DA said, boy, we didn't 
know what was going on in other States. We didn't know that there were 
any other crimes committed there. And then judges did not have enough 
information prior to setting bail.
  We can't let people off the hook just by saying that we just didn't 
have enough information. Six people died in the Waukesha Christmas 
parade because no one took the time to figure out that this individual 
who was before them was absolutely one of the most dangerous people 
living in Wisconsin.
  States would be further incentivized to report this information to 
the National Crime Information Center. It would bring transparency, and 
it would change the bail system.
  Mr. Speaker, there are solutions to these issues; but, unfortunately, 
there is a faction of the Democratic Party that simply continues to run 
the opposite way. I don't know if it is to assure their constituencies 
that they are with them, but that time is over.
  Unfortunately, as we are in the middle of September right before the 
November elections, the Democrats finally woke up.
  Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I am astonished that Mr. Fitzgerald would 
admit that the Republicans want to defund the police by 75 percent. 
That is what he just said. After all the Republican rhetoric about the 
Democrats wanting to defund the police--which, of course, is not true--
Mr. Fitzgerald just got up and told us the Republicans want to defund 
the police by 75 percent.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. JORDAN. Mr. Speaker, I have no idea what my distinguished 
colleague and chairman of the committee was referring to there, but I 
yield myself the balance of my time for the purpose of closing.
  Mr. Speaker, I would just add this: One of the phrases we heard from 
the Democrats over the last couple of years is ``reimagined policing.''
  Well, now we know what they mean. Now we get it. They want to take 
money from communities who funded their police and give it to 
communities who didn't, so they can get past this whole defund the 
police that has been their mantra for the last couple years.
  In fact, as I said before, I am surprised by some of the statements I 
have heard from the chairman of the committee, because as I said, in 
June of 2020--and it is a direct quote--``There should be substantial 
cuts to the police budget. . . . `'--by Mr. Nadler.
  Now he has got a bill that supposedly, they are saying, funds the 
police, but we know it doesn't. It takes money from communities I get 
the privilege of representing in west central Ohio who never, never 
defunded their police. They made sure the men and women in blue got the 
resources they needed to protect their communities.
  And now the Democrats are saying: We want to take taxpayer dollars 
from those communities and set up these grant programs so we can give 
it to social workers. This is straight from the bill, so we can give 
``a stipend to be used for graduate education in the area of mental 
health, public health, or social work. . . . `'
  That is what they want the money to be used for, not for the people 
who are stopping the crime that is happening in every major urban area 
around the country.
  That is why we are opposed to this legislation. I hope it goes down.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time to 
close.
  Mr. Speaker, this bill would bolster law enforcement across the 
country and improve public safety. I think it is telling that people 
like Mr. Rutherford on the Republican side of the aisle helped craft 
this bill with people like Mr. Gottheimer on this side of the aisle.
  On the other hand, there are, obviously, a lot of Republicans like 
Mr. Jordan who want to defund the police or at least defund small town 
America police by opposing this bill.
  So, Mr. Speaker, I urge all Members to support small town America and 
to support policing in small town America by supporting this bill, and 
I yield back the balance of my time.
  Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 6448, the 
``Invest to Protect Act of 2022,''--bipartisan legislation that would 
bolster small law enforcement agencies' ability to address staffing 
shortages and improve community safety through de-escalation training 
and other resources.
  It was Democrats who spent two years negotiating and working with law 
enforcement to introduce and pass the comprehensive ``George Floyd 
Justice in Policing Act of 2021''--which recognized the necessity of 
balancing the needs and safety of the community with law enforcement 
interests.
  That is why I tried to make this bill better by adding three 
additional purposes for the use of grant funding.
  Development and implementation of best practices and training on the 
use of lethal and nonlethal force;
  Development and implementation of best practices and training to 
eliminate the use of excessive force;
  Development and implementation of best practices and training on the 
duty of care and the duty to intervene.
  I am glad those provisions were added where grantees who choose to 
implement those activities will be given preference.
  This bill seeks to address these challenges by providing additional 
federal resources to small agencies--that often have the most trouble 
accessing federal grant funding--to recruit and retain qualified 
officers as well as provide additional training and support.
  A 2016 study by the Department of Justice (DOJ) found that of the 
12,261 local police departments in the country, 11,638 of them had less 
than 100 full-time sworn officers. That is 11,638 police departments 
that would be eligible to access much-needed funding as authorized by 
H.R. 6448.

[[Page H8090]]

  Importantly, H.R. 6448 includes limitations on the use of grant funds 
for hiring and retention to ensure that the funds are not misused, and 
gives preference to applicants that plan to use grant funds for certain 
training purposes, including:
  de-escalation; the use of lethal and nonlethal force; the duty of 
care and the duty to intervene--as well as--
  victim-centered training on handling domestic violence situations; 
and
  safety training for officers responding to calls involving persons 
with substance use disorders, mental health needs, disabilities, and 
vulnerable youth.
  This bill would also allow departments to use funds to provide mental 
health services and treatment to officers and collect data on policing 
practices that focus on officer and community safety.
  In its totality, H.R. 6448 provides critical funding to law 
enforcement agencies that need it while encouraging improvement among 
their ranks. This bill makes clear that Democrats will continue to 
uplift and support law enforcement--as we always have--and we will do 
so in a manner that ensures officers are well-trained to keep 
themselves safe as well as the people and communities they serve.
  Let's be clear--This is not a last-ditch effort by Democrats to 
distance ourselves from efforts to defund the police. Democrats have 
always been supportive of law enforcement.
  Mr. GOTTHEIMER. Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record the following 
letter of support of H.R. 6448, Invest to Protect Act, from the 
Fraternal Order of Police.

                           National Fraternal Order of Police,

                               Washington, DC, September 22, 2022.
     Hon. Nancy P. Pelosi,
     Speaker, House of Representatives,
     Washington, DC.
     Hon. Kevin O. McCarthy,
     Minority Leader, House of Representatives,
     Washington, DC.
     Hon. Steny H. Hoyer,
     Majority Leader, House of Representatives,
     Washington, DC.
     Hon. Stephen J. Scalise,
     Minority Whip, House of Representatives,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Madam Speaker and Representatives McCarthy, Hoyer and 
     Scalise: I am writing on behalf of the members of the 
     Fraternal Order of Police to urge the Members of the U.S. 
     House of Representatives to support the passage of H.R. 5768, 
     the ``Violent Incident Clearance and Technological 
     Investigative Methods (VICTIM) Act,'' and H.R. 6448, the 
     ``Invest to Protect Act,'' which could be considered on the 
     floor of the House as early as today.
       Homicide cases can be very difficult to clear--especially 
     those committed via firearm--and non-fatal shootings even 
     more so. Closing these types of crimes requires diligence, 
     manpower, and a sustained investigative effort. Given the 
     limited resources of law enforcement agencies, it's important 
     to provide the significant, dedicated resources that clearing 
     these crimes requires, especially given their oftentimes 
     heinous nature, and the need to get justice for the victims 
     and their families.
       The ``VICTIM Act'' would establish a grant program to help 
     State, Tribal, and local law enforcement agencies improve 
     their clearance rates for homicides, non-fatal shootings and 
     other violent crimes. Agencies can use these grant funds to 
     train, hire, or retain additional detectives, investigators, 
     or other police personnel to investigate, solve, and respond 
     to these crimes. The grants can also be used to improve 
     training for agency personnel to address the needs of victims 
     and family members impacted by these crimes. By providing 
     those important resources to law enforcement agencies across 
     the country, we can improve the chances that murders, sexual 
     assaults, kidnappings, and non-fatal shootings get cleared. 
     This means ensuring punishment for the perpetrators, securing 
     justice for the victims and their families, and providing 
     peace of mind for the communities our members work so hard to 
     protect.
       The FOP also urges Members of the House to support H.R. 
     6448, the ``Invest to Protect Act.'' Over the last few years, 
     law enforcement officers have faced many challenges and 
     threats to their well-being that have created a dangerous 
     environment for those sworn to protect the public. These 
     challenges have ranged from violence against officers, an 
     increase in violent rhetoric against them, lagging 
     technology, recruitment and retention issues, and mental 
     health concerns. Smaller municipalities are experiencing 
     increased strain on the men and women in blue. We believe 
     that the ``Invest to Protect Act'' can help our nation's 
     smaller agencies and departments combat these issues that 
     plague law enforcement officers in smaller municipalities.
       This legislation would establish a grant program that would 
     be used for training of officers from police departments and 
     municipalities that employ less than 125 law enforcement 
     officers. The funding appropriated would be $60 million over 
     a five-year period. These trainings would include de-
     escalation, domestic violence response, and response calls to 
     vulnerable populations like those involving persons with 
     disabilities, mental health issues, or substance abuse 
     disorders.
       This legislation is also designed to help these smaller 
     agencies recruit new officers and to help address the 
     retention issue of current officers. The funding could also 
     be used by officers from eligible departments who are 
     pursuing further education in mental health, public health, 
     or social work. These officers could receive up to $10,000 in 
     aid towards their tuition. Lastly, the funding could also be 
     used for mental health services, treatments, and therapies 
     for active police officers.
       On behalf of the more than 364,000 members of the Fraternal 
     Order of Police, I urge the Members of the House to pass 
     these two bills to support our nation's small departments and 
     the communities they serve. If I can provide any additional 
     information about this bill, please do not hesitate to 
     contact me or Executive Director Jim Pasco in our Washington, 
     D.C. office.
           Sincerely,
                                                     Patrick Yoes,
                                               National President.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. All time for debate has expired.
  Pursuant to House Resolution 1377, the previous question is ordered 
on the bill, as amended.
  The question is on the engrossment and third reading of the bill.
  The bill was ordered to be engrossed and read a third time, and was 
read the third time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on passage of the bill.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.
  Mr. JORDAN. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX, further 
proceedings on this question will be postponed.

                          ____________________